ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2018
Crisis or self-correction: Rethinking media narratives about the well-being of science.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- What is critical metascience and why is it important?Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- Trust in scientists and their role in society across 68 countries.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- From impact metrics and open science to communicating research: Journalists' awareness of academic controversies.PloS one · 2025Article
- Factors Assessing Science's Self-Presentation model and their effect on conservatives' and liberals' support for funding science.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Reproducibility in the Social Sciences.Annual review of sociology · 2022Article
- Learning from Retracted Papers Authored by the Highly Cited Iran-affiliated Researchers: Revisiting Research Policies and a Key Message to Clarivate Analytics.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Article
- Article
- Understanding experiments and research practices for reproducibility: an exploratory study.PeerJ · 2021Article
- Mapping the discursive dimensions of the reproducibility crisis: A mixed methods analysis.PloS one · 2021Article
- Strengthening the Medical Error "Meme Pool".Journal of general internal medicine · 2019Article
- Changing times for science and the public: Science journalists' roles for the responsible communication of science.EMBO reports · 2019Article
- The Brazilian Reproducibility Initiative.eLife · 2019Article
- Reproducibility of research: Issues and proposed remedies.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018Article
- Scientific progress despite irreproducibility: A seeming paradox.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
After documenting the existence and exploring some implications of three alternative news narratives about science and its challenges, this essay outlines ways in which those who communicate science can more accurately convey its investigatory process, self-correcting norms, and remedial actions, without in the process legitimizing an unwarranted "science is broken/in crisis" narrative. The three storylines are: (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.